Site-Based Foolishness

Public educational reform can be defined as that process by which
administrators develop and implement new ideas this year for the
purpose of helping the public forget those that failed to take hold
last year. So rest in peace, "site-based management," right alongside
the "planning, programming budget system (P.P.B.S.)" and "team
teaching."

I very much wish we could hang in there. The central idea is sound.
But there are reasons to be pessimistic. Like the politically late
Mikhail Gorbachev, too many are trying hard to imagine a process with
which they have had little or no experience. And by the way, hello
"strategic planning" or whatever comes next.

There are lots of schools in this country that are really
school-based. But they are not public. They are called independent,
parochial, or private schools. If you asked to see the "building
principal" of one of these schools, you might be corrected. "Do you
mean the head of maintenance?" If you asked to talk to the "building
staff," you might be granted an interview with the custodians. And if
you asked the independent-school leader if his or her school were "site
based" with a "site based" budget, I am sure there would be at least a
pause in the conversation.

Let me suggest some simple-minded terms and concepts that might give
those of us who believe in this latest school reform a little hope. A
little hope, that is, if we heard them used.

A school is an active community of teachers and learners. If the
building in which it is housed burns down, the school continues as long
as that community functions. A "site" or a "building" is not a school.
A site is the yard or field on which a physical structure may be
placed.

The reform has to do with the learning responsibilities and
accountability of a school, the human organization, which may include a
school principal, school faculty and staff, students, and even parents.
To mix up the physical entity, "building" and "site," with the human
organization, the school, goes right to the heart of the matter. That
is what has been wrong with most public schools and what the reform
seeks to address.

In fact, in many public schools there is a building staff rather
than a school faculty sharing in school leadership and accountability
for academic results; there's a building principal who takes
responsibility for administrative and building matters rather than the
educational and instructional leadership; and there's a site or
building budget that is effectively prepared for the most part
centrally. And that budget is organized and expressed not in categories
that mean something to the school faculty (such as, "kindergarten,"
"English," "art," and "mathematics") but in terms that satisfy state
auditors (such as "instruction," "administration").

The re-creation of public schools will in the words of Edwards
Deming, a major architect of international industrial reform, require
"constancy of purpose" over a long period of time. And reform will have
to be in human, programmatic, and organizational terms. Each time a
school is referred to as a "building," a faculty as "building staff," a
school-improvement plan and budget as a "site plan and budget," and a
school leader as a "building principal," one more nail is pounded into
the coffin of this essential public-school reform.

I suggest that many who use this language may, like the former
Soviet president, be irrelevant because they really have not
experienced and cannot really understand what they are talking about. I
suggest further that those of us who are teachers and principals, or
who have been, should be insulted by this kind of dehumanizing
characterization of our roles and responsibilities. We should also be
very dubious about the results of the effort.

I realize that these are only words, but our words should not point
us one way when we intend to move in the opposite direction. If the
reform is to take hold and benefit learners, we have to speak up. How
about starting with you?

Oliver S. Brown is a former teacher, principal, and superintendent. His
experience includes independent and public schools as well as
management consulting with the firm of Price Waterhouse & Company.
He is currently an instructor at the Harvard Graduate School of
Education and a consultant for schools and other nonprofit
organizations in the areas of finance and management.

Vol. 11, Issue 19, Page 32

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.